If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
No need for a graphics card on a Core2 Duo tower from 2007?
I recently took out the old Asus (Nvidia chip) 512 MB cheap graphics card, for the Win10-32 bit OS tower I am running now (3 GB RAM, Core2 Duo uP), and I'm wondering, since I'm using the 'on-board' video card (Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950, DirectX 9.0 and Max. shared memory 224MB http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm) and it seems to work OK (I don't do video games, no need for a fancy video card), why bother getting another PCI Express video card?
From what I can tell, the only reason would be to get a card before they run out of stock (cheap video cards are getting harder to buy?), but, the odds of that are small I imagine, since somebody somewhere will have such cheap cards for the next 10 years I imagine. So when this onboard video ever fails, I can always buy a cheap video card then. Using the onboard video chip, will that stress it somewhat and make it more prone to fail? Maybe. Any other ideas? Maybe when I run AutoCAD to view certain not too complex drawings the system will run faster, but what else? The PC seems ok now. What is a decent benchmark test to run? SysMark something, do you have to pay for that benchmark? Something free so I can compare the benefits of getting a separate video card. Thank you, RL |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
No need for a graphics card on a Core2 Duo tower from 2007?
RayLopez99 wrote:
I recently took out the old Asus (Nvidia chip) 512 MB cheap graphics card, for the Win10-32 bit OS tower I am running now (3 GB RAM, Core2 Duo uP), and I'm wondering, since I'm using the 'on-board' video card (Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950, DirectX 9.0 and Max. shared memory 224MB http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm) and it seems to work OK (I don't do video games, no need for a fancy video card), why bother getting another PCI Express video card? From what I can tell, the only reason would be to get a card before they run out of stock (cheap video cards are getting harder to buy?), but, the odds of that are small I imagine, since somebody somewhere will have such cheap cards for the next 10 years I imagine. So when this onboard video ever fails, I can always buy a cheap video card then. Using the onboard video chip, will that stress it somewhat and make it more prone to fail? Maybe. Any other ideas? Maybe when I run AutoCAD to view certain not too complex drawings the system will run faster, but what else? The PC seems ok now. What is a decent benchmark test to run? SysMark something, do you have to pay for that benchmark? Something free so I can compare the benefits of getting a separate video card. Thank you, RL I like the separate card for cross-platform (Linux and Windows). I might have more options with ATI and NVidia, than with Intel. Intel has been gradually learning the graphics business. Some of their older graphics in Northbridges were pretty sad. The newer stuff where the GPU is inside the CPU, those are better than they used to be. You can get some benchmarks. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ Just for fun, let's compare the best Intel Iris graphics (in CPU) versus the GT 710 $40 card. Passmark G3D GeForce GT 710 654 Iris Pro Graphics 6200, GT3e, 48 e.u. 1484 That's just to show that a little "cross-over" is possible. However, the Intel CPU with those graphics inside, costs a bit over $350, and I think you can see a $40 video card has some advantages from a price perspective. There are other Intel graphics, with 6x less e.u. (Execution Units). So if we scale that 1484 number down by a factor of 6, the Intel no longer looks like a winner. The people who can afford a $350 CPU, generally have a gamer card as a matter of course, so it's rather wasteful to put Iris graphics only in the expensive one, when it would pay dividends in a "cheap" SKU. However, I'm not a marketing genius like the staff at Intel. They know exactly what they're (randomly) doing :-) Before you make your "final" decision, I think I'd open the AutoCAD and marvel at the smokin Intel performance. Then see what you say. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
No need for a graphics card on a Core2 Duo tower from 2007?
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:56:58 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:
I recently took out the old Asus (Nvidia chip) 512 MB cheap graphics card, for the Win10-32 bit OS tower I am running now (3 GB RAM, Core2 Duo uP), and I'm wondering, since I'm using the 'on-board' video card (Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950, DirectX 9.0 and Max. shared memory 224MB http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm) and it seems to work OK (I don't do video games, no need for a fancy video card), why bother getting another PCI Express video card? From what I can tell, the only reason would be to get a card before they run out of stock (cheap video cards are getting harder to buy?), but, the odds of that are small I imagine, since somebody somewhere will have such cheap cards for the next 10 years I imagine. So when this onboard video ever fails, I can always buy a cheap video card then. Using the onboard video chip, will that stress it somewhat and make it more prone to fail? Maybe. Any other ideas? Maybe when I run AutoCAD to view certain not too complex drawings the system will run faster, but what else? The PC seems ok now. What is a decent benchmark test to run? SysMark something, do you have to pay for that benchmark? Something free so I can compare the benefits of getting a separate video card. Thank you, RL AutoCAD appears to benefit from a video system that has 3D acceleration available. This applies even if you aren't doing 3D drawing. At work we are using HP mini-towers (getting a bit elderly now) and I did an upgrade from the built-in graphics to the cheapest AutoCAD recommended video card. The difference was quite remarkable (to me. YMMV of course). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
No need for a graphics card on a Core2 Duo tower from 2007?
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 5:27:18 AM UTC-5, mick wrote:
AutoCAD appears to benefit from a video system that has 3D acceleration available. This applies even if you aren't doing 3D drawing. At work we are using HP mini-towers (getting a bit elderly now) and I did an upgrade from the built-in graphics to the cheapest AutoCAD recommended video card. The difference was quite remarkable (to me. YMMV of course). OK thanks. Interesting that the old 3D Asus/Nvidia generic video card did have a driver for "3D" but the built-in Intel graphics card does not/may not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No need for a graphics card on a Core2 Duo tower from 2007?
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 3:56:59 PM UTC-5, RayLopez99 wrote:
[] For about $50 I bought this, apparently from the photo a low-profile, 'fan-less' video card: Zotac PCI Express Video Card ZT-71301-20L by ZOTAC Chipset: NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 Core Clock: 954 MHz Video Memory: 1GB DDR3 Memory Clock: 1600 MHz Memory Interface: 64-bit Bus: PCI-Express 2.0 Benchmark: 654 for Zotac GeForce GT 710 (this in "http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/mid_range_gpus.html" Mid-Range Video cards) And the video card driver program, downloaded direct from Zotac, does support 32 bit Windows 10, so I'm happy. However, one guy on the net says this card gets "150 Frames Per Second", on a Core 2 Duo (same uP as my system) yet a quick review of another site says anything above 60 FPS is not visible to the human eye, since that is the refresh rate of an LCD monitor. So some cycles are being 'wasted' though I supposed if you are multi-tasking you might need those extra, hidden, 'wasted' cycles. Wonder what Paul says... RL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
No need for a graphics card on a Core2 Duo tower from 2007?
RayLopez99 wrote:
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 3:56:59 PM UTC-5, RayLopez99 wrote: [] For about $50 I bought this, apparently from the photo a low-profile, 'fan-less' video card: Zotac PCI Express Video Card ZT-71301-20L by ZOTAC Chipset: NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 Core Clock: 954 MHz Video Memory: 1GB DDR3 Memory Clock: 1600 MHz Memory Interface: 64-bit Bus: PCI-Express 2.0 Benchmark: 654 for Zotac GeForce GT 710 (this in "http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/mid_range_gpus.html" Mid-Range Video cards) And the video card driver program, downloaded direct from Zotac, does support 32 bit Windows 10, so I'm happy. However, one guy on the net says this card gets "150 Frames Per Second", on a Core 2 Duo (same uP as my system) yet a quick review of another site says anything above 60 FPS is not visible to the human eye, since that is the refresh rate of an LCD monitor. So some cycles are being 'wasted' though I supposed if you are multi-tasking you might need those extra, hidden, 'wasted' cycles. Wonder what Paul says... RL I'm sure there's a setting to take care of that :-) Some software has caps or limiters, so it doesn't do that. It might get 150FPS playing DOOM or something. The software can either adhere to VSYNC (hardware retrace, no tearing). Or, it can run open-ended. You could try the developer interface on Firefox, the one with the frame rate graph, and see what it reports. That one should be 60Hz when Firefox is compositing. (It does that continuously, even when a web page isn't doing anything.) Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Computex 2007: Intel planning to enter discrete graphics card market in 2008 | AirRaid[_4_] | AMD x86-64 Processors | 8 | June 16th 07 03:00 AM |
Computex 2007: Intel planning to enter discrete graphics card market in 2008 | AirRaid[_4_] | Intel | 7 | June 15th 07 04:06 PM |
Computex 2007: Intel planning to enter discrete graphics card market in 2008 | AirRaid[_4_] | Nvidia Videocards | 7 | June 15th 07 04:06 PM |
Computex 2007: Intel planning to enter discrete graphics card market in 2008 | AirRaid[_4_] | Ati Videocards | 7 | June 15th 07 04:06 PM |
Core2 Duo mb for SLI and onboard graphics? | Samson | Asus Motherboards | 0 | April 3rd 07 06:24 AM |